Glass v. Voiron

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Glass v. Voiron

897 So. 2d 697, 2004 WL 2914084

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 17, 2004

DocketNo. 2003 CA 2823

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 897 So. 2d 697 (Glass v. Voiron) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Glass v. Voiron, 897 So. 2d 697, 2004 WL 2914084 (La. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

| .CARTER, C.J.

This matter arises out of a petition for divorce filed in Division B (Suit Number 2000-001373) and a petition for the partition of community property filed in Division G (Suit Number 2003-000432), both in the 21st Judicial District Court in Tangipa-hoa Parish. A judgment of divorce was signed on November 13, 2001. Thereafter, the parties continued to litigate incidental issues involving the partition of community property and the reimbursement/payment of community expenses and debts.

Plaintiff, Donna Glass, appealed an October 2, 2003 trial court judgment ordering that “the matters before the Court [in Division ‘B’] related to community property matters and therefore, all issues before this court are transferred to Division ‘G,’ where the community property partition suit between the parties is filed and allotted.” Also on October 2, 2003, the trial court signed an order setting the return date for plaintiffs devolutive appeal from the transfer order. In a handwritten Per Curiam at the bottom of the order of appeal, the trial court noted that “the ‘judgment’ signed may well be an interlocutory decree, appealable by writ only.” Defendant, David Voiron, filed an answer to the appeal on December 24, 2003, arguing that plaintiffs appeal was an improper appeal of an interlocutory judgment. Additionally, defendant requested attorney’s fees, damages, and costs in connection with having to answer plaintiffs frivolous appeal. Plaintiff never filed an appellate brief, although she paid the appeal costs.

On March 25, 2004, this Court dismissed plaintiffs appeal as abandoned, pursuant to Rules 2-12.7 and 2-8.6, Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, for failure to [699]*699timely file a brief and failure to respond to this Court’s ^notice to file the brief or suffer dismissal.¹ Because we dismissed plaintiffs appeal, the issue of whether plaintiffs appeal should have been dismissed on the grounds that it was a nonap-pealable interlocutory judgment is now moot.² However, there still remains defendant’s issue of damages, attorney’s fees, and costs associated with a frivolous appeal. See State in Interest of Muse v. Ross, 26,554 (La.App. 2 Cir. 3/1/95), 651 So.2d 364, 366; Ecopur, Inc. v. McCloud, 432 So.2d 380, 381 (La.App. 1 Cir.1983).

The law allows for damages for frivolous appeals where an appeal was taken solely for purposes of delay, or where counsel for the appellant did not sincerely believe in the merits of the appellant’s position. Since plaintiff has not filed a brief specifying any error, it is difficult for us to find that she seriously believed in the merits of her position. See Capital-Union Savings, F.A. v. Williams, 528 So.2d 187, 188 (La.App. 1 Cir.1988); Schnatz v. Schnatz, 501 So.2d 318, 320 (La.App. 5 Cir.), writ denied, 504 So.2d 877 (La.1987). Furthermore, plaintiffs abandonment of her appeal took place after defendant’s answer to the appeal was filed seeking damages for frivolous appeal. See Muse v. Ross, 651 So.2d at 366. Accordingly, we find that plaintiffs appeal was frivolous and that defendant is entitled to reasonable damages and attorney’s fees.³

| ¿Therefore, we hereby render judgment in favor of defendant, David Voiron, and against plaintiff, Donna Glass, in the amount of $500.00 in damages for frivolous appeal and $1,000.00 for attorney’s fees. Additionally, costs of this appeal are to be paid by plaintiff, Donna Glass.

DAMAGES AWARDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

| .CARTER, C.J.

This matter arises out of a petition for divorce filed in Division B (Suit Number 2000-001373) and a petition for the partition of community property filed in Division G (Suit Number 2003-000432), both in the 21st Judicial District Court in Tangipa-hoa Parish. A judgment of divorce was signed on November 13, 2001. Thereafter, the parties continued to litigate incidental issues involving the partition of community property and the reimbursement/payment of community expenses and debts.

Plaintiff, Donna Glass, appealed an October 2, 2003 trial court judgment ordering that “the matters before the Court [in Division ‘B’] related to community property matters and therefore, all issues before this court are transferred to Division ‘G,’ where the community property partition suit between the parties is filed and allotted.” Also on October 2, 2003, the trial court signed an order setting the return date for plaintiffs devolutive appeal from the transfer order. In a handwritten Per Curiam at the bottom of the order of appeal, the trial court noted that “the ‘judgment’ signed may well be an interlocutory decree, appealable by writ only.” Defendant, David Voiron, filed an answer to the appeal on December 24, 2003, arguing that plaintiffs appeal was an improper appeal of an interlocutory judgment. Additionally, defendant requested attorney’s fees, damages, and costs in connection with having to answer plaintiffs frivolous appeal. Plaintiff never filed an appellate brief, although she paid the appeal costs.

On March 25, 2004, this Court dismissed plaintiffs appeal as abandoned, pursuant to Rules 2-12.7 and 2-8.6, Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, for failure to [699]*699timely file a brief and failure to respond to this Court’s ^notice to file the brief or suffer dismissal.¹ Because we dismissed plaintiffs appeal, the issue of whether plaintiffs appeal should have been dismissed on the grounds that it was a nonap-pealable interlocutory judgment is now moot.² However, there still remains defendant’s issue of damages, attorney’s fees, and costs associated with a frivolous appeal. See State in Interest of Muse v. Ross, 26,554 (La.App. 2 Cir. 3/1/95), 651 So.2d 364, 366; Ecopur, Inc. v. McCloud, 432 So.2d 380, 381 (La.App. 1 Cir.1983).

The law allows for damages for frivolous appeals where an appeal was taken solely for purposes of delay, or where counsel for the appellant did not sincerely believe in the merits of the appellant’s position. Since plaintiff has not filed a brief specifying any error, it is difficult for us to find that she seriously believed in the merits of her position. See Capital-Union Savings, F.A. v. Williams, 528 So.2d 187, 188 (La.App. 1 Cir.1988); Schnatz v. Schnatz, 501 So.2d 318, 320 (La.App. 5 Cir.), writ denied, 504 So.2d 877 (La.1987). Furthermore, plaintiffs abandonment of her appeal took place after defendant’s answer to the appeal was filed seeking damages for frivolous appeal. See Muse v. Ross, 651 So.2d at 366. Accordingly, we find that plaintiffs appeal was frivolous and that defendant is entitled to reasonable damages and attorney’s fees.³

| ¿Therefore, we hereby render judgment in favor of defendant, David Voiron, and against plaintiff, Donna Glass, in the amount of $500.00 in damages for frivolous appeal and $1,000.00 for attorney’s fees. Additionally, costs of this appeal are to be paid by plaintiff, Donna Glass.

DAMAGES AWARDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

897 So. 2d 697, 2004 WL 2914084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glass-v-voiron-lactapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack